Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

jamonterrell writes "The US Senate just unanimously passed a bill allowing the criminal prosecution of recording movies with a camcorder in theatres. Victims of the new bill would face 3 years in prison on first offense (5 if it was done for profit), repeat offenders would get 10 years. As a side note, it will cost taxpayers an additional 5 million dollars per year through 2009 for enforcement." Several states have made recording in theaters a crime, although none of them have penalties nearly as harsh as this Senate bill.

No, you don't have the right to do all that nonsense in someone else's house. The only reason you have the right to do it at home is because a lot of fair use is just a reasonable expectation of privacy. We make fair use because we don't want companies coming into our homes and determining our activities. A movie theatre is a public place and there is no such expectation.

Also, when you pay your $10 at the theatre...that $10 is for the right to sit in the theatre and watch whatever the theatre decides to display and at their convenience, not yours. Your $10 is not to purchase a copy of a film, it is for a one time viewing of said film.

There is no possible way you can justify making videotaping first run movies in the theatre legal. Way too over the top utopian socialist viewpoint. If you don't allow companies to at least establish cursory protection of their property...they won't produce it for you to steal. I'm not suggesting we allow them into our homes, but likewise, you shouldn't be able to go into their house and steal their product.

If the EFF were to "fight" this law, they'd be fighting for it. For the right for an individual or a corporation to prevent others from videotaping on private property. Otherwise, when you become Maddonna/Esther, the paparazzi could legally come onto your property to videotape you eating dinner.

If you don't allow companies to at least establish cursory protection of their property...they won't produce it for you to steal. I'm not suggesting we allow them into our homes, but likewise, you shouldn't be able to go into their house and steal their product.

The way I read it was they werent paying for the cursory protection.
All this bill does is manufactures criminals.

If the MPAA is so damned concerned about this, they need to pay to have metal detectors put up and gaurds posted at all entrances

Why do you think they don't want people taking pictures of some of the most famous paintings or things. Because it will devalue the item. The creator has exclusive rights to reproduce something IN ANY FORM.

Except that it is not true. The creator has a time-limited monopoly. Aren't many of the most famous paintings in the public domain?

"I don't suppose anyone is going to come up with an argument saying that they are in the theaters with their camcorders excersizing their right to time shift...:)"

So theoretically, would this make it worth your while to kill anyone who noticed you using the camcorder, if there was, say, a 60% chance that killing them allowed you to successfully escape? There must be some probability threshold before a "manslaughter-equivalent" jail sentance for videoing makes it worth your while to do bad things if you get caught...

How does the person sitting next to you in the cinema feel about this, compared to say, the managing director of the company who invested in the film?

Answer: There are several types of first degree murder, all of which are defined by A.R.S. 13-1105.
The first definition of first degree murder is causing the death of another person with either the intent or knowledge that the conduct will cause death and with premeditation. Premeditation is often described as 'malice aforethought,' which basically means that you probably considered the consequence of your conduct for at least a second before you committed the act.

he second definition of first degree murder is causing the death of another person while committing or attempting to commit another crime like sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, molestation of a child, various drug-related crimes, kidnapping, burglary, arson, robbery, escape from jail, child abuse, or unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle, or while fleeing from the scene where you committed any of these offenses.

You *could* disable your camcorder (cover the lens or whatnot) and proceed to pretend to "film" the movie while watching it. It's quite legal, even if it might drive theater managers nuts. It also makes enforcement of this infeasible, if done widely enough.

Here is the bill text [nw.dc.us], which should really have been included in the story. (Actually, IMHO, Slashdot policy should be to require a link to bill text when submitting a story on new legislation.)

Seriously, what is the reason there is not a minimum time for review till bills can be passed? Shouldn't the final text of bills be public long enough for the public to be able to provide some feedback before voting? Whouldn't that at least allow somewhat for greater public approval?

Hah! A cooling off period for legislation.

Doubt that it would change much for bills that don't get media attention, but it might have influenced the Patriot Act.

Or they could implement a quiz period before a vote: any congresscritter who can't answer reasonable questions about the bill (with a paper copy in front of him/her, but no electronics or aides) must either vote nay or abstain.

'Course, something like this could never come to pass--it'd be used for filibuster tactics, how do you define "reasonable", who determines what's an acceptable answer, etc. But it's a scary thought-experiment to realize that something like this would drastically change the face of Congress.

It's a great idea, as far as public disobedience and protesting is concerned. Only problem is, I suspect it would be treated much like waving around a realistic-looking toy gun. It's not illegal to have the toy gun, but you'd certainly at least get thrown out and waste your money you spent to see the movie. (Not to mention, probably get arrested and have to go through the hassle of proving you weren't actually doing anything wrong.)

The thing that bothers me most about this law is the way the movie indus

Well, just recording the film you paid to see is victimless, but that would be a foolish activity by itself. (Although your recording activity may make the viewing experience of someone near you less pleasant; I suppose there's a little damage there.)

The reasonable presumption is that you or someone else is going to see what you recorded, and that person would otherwise be paying to see the movie (perhaps not for the first time.) That is where the damage comes in, and the activity is no longer victimless.

It shows how much the music industry owns the US government that the bill cites the 31% loss claims of the music industry in a law, and ignores the fact that all the academic studies, as well as the statistics gathering companies rebut the data rather convincingly.

Like it wouldn't drive *me* nuts to hold a camcorder while I'm trying to enjoy a movie? Who has time for shit like this? Quite frankly, I don't care if they want to put people in jail for filming movies in theatres so why in Hell would I want to disable a camcorder and pretend to film a movie to help out asshole pirates? You sir, are an asshat.

While no one will likely bash this law claiming a right to videotape in theatres, I will say that this law is way too draconian. Three years in prison if it's not for profit, and five if it is when nothing tangible has been taken? Fines would be more appropriate. If they are going to be draconian, why not just sentance camcorder "pirates" to death? What are those senators smoking?

I would have thought that night-vision equipment and kicking perpetrators out of cinemas would work.
You're kidding, right? That isn't a deterrent at all. The goal is to deter people from thinking illegal recording is worth it. What fool would think recording a flick is worth a few years in prison? Not many. I guarantee you, though, lots of (morally defunct) fools think recording a flick is worth getting kicked out of a showing.
I support deterring crime with actual punishment. 3 years should be th

What country are YOU living in? Here in America (by which I mean the USA and Canada), punishment rarely fits the crime. If you steal a billion dollars from investors, you'll be asked to retire and pay a fine. Steal a hundred dollars from a liquour store, and you'll get twenty years in jail.

Pirating films isn't white-collar enough to warrant a light sentence. The only crimes that have stiff sentences are the ones that wealthy people don't commit.

We're a bit behind the times down here. I can't think of any recent examples of a local company using it's financial power to put draconian laws into affect. Give us another six months or so to catch up on that one.
Hopefully we'll tear up and burn that Fraud Trade Agreement Bush "offered" us, and we won't have to worry about it any time soon either.

Move to the Free State [freestateproject.org]. about 200,000 libertarian Slashdotters should be able to make a big impact there.

Their goal is to create a Free State out of New Hampshire, that will combine the personal freedom of Holland with the economic freedom of Hong Kong. They are already attempting to change gun laws to allow concealed weapon carrying without a license. Raw milk sales are not regulated. Congresspeople are part-timers and get paid $100 a year. The state government is small and the crime rate is low. If the F

Move to the Free State.... Their goal is to create a Free State out of New Hampshire,...

That does look very interesting, and the people do seem to be sincere about everything. Before reading their information, I just assumed that New Hampshire was just as bad as any other New England state. It was surprising to see that they appear to be a tiny oasis in the middle of a liberal swampland.

For me, the main concern with their choice of New Hampshire is not with how things are today, but some years down t

This law isn't about punishing American malefactors. I would bet the problem of pirating films with vidcams isn't even serious in the USA. This law was passed so that we can show our international trading partners (East Asia, among others) that we're serious about intellectual property and hence so should they be. The USA has to create and impose some way of protecting intellectual property, because nowadays, it's among our major exports.

Ah yes, but most people who steal from liquor stores have committed many other crimes, and are likely to commit a lot more, whereas white collar criminals tend to only commit one crime.

Huh, that's funny. I'd have sworn Dennis Koslowski [nydailynews.com] is accused not only of looting his own company, but tax evasion in the millions as well -- and various conspiracies to cover up his alleged crimes.

Not to mention the allegations against Ken Lay and the other alleged Enron conspirators : not only are they alleged to have conned their own investors, they are also alleged to have manufactured fake power shortages in order to over-charge California, according to seized tapes: [cbsnews.com]

"They're fucking taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"

"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"

"Yeah, now she wants her fucking money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her asshole for fucking $250 a megawatt hour."

And the tapes appear to link top Enron officials Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling to schemes that fueled the crisis.

"Government Affairs has to prove how valuable it is to Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling," says one trader.

But even if you were correct in claiming that "white collar criminals tend to only commit one crime", if that single crime nets the criminal millions of dollars, well, those ill-gotten gains will last a lifetime longer than the take from knocking over a liqueur store.

I'm sure that if by robbing a liqueur store you could make millions, the hold up men would be happy to retire afterward -- or be driven out of thievery by competition from greedy MBAs.

But tell me one thing: why are you so willing to be sympathetic to those who steal the investments of pensioners and pension plans in order to live it up yachting on the Riviera, and so unsympathetic to the poor junkie from the projects who just wants to steal enough to get by for one more miserable day?

Why do we allow the wealthy to bend us over and rob us, and then fawn all over them at their parole parties? Why do we beleive that a CEO really "earns" a salary plus benefits in the tens of millions of dollars, while the average worker gets his jib outsourced?

Is it because we respect wealth -- earned or stolen -- so much, or just because we respect ourselves so little?

Is this still the country that Jefferson and the Adamses risked their "lives, fortunes, and scared honors" for, or some European-style feudalism with the thieving rich taking the place of an idle aristocracy?

Is this still the country that Jefferson and the Adamses risked their "lives, fortunes, and scared honors" for, or some European-style feudalism with the thieving rich taking the place of an idle aristocracy?

Seriously, how do you think the European aristocracy came into being? It was rich and wealthy merchants using their money and power to buy themselves rights and more power. America is not a classless society, it just defines its classes differently. Your powerful families are growing just as they did in Europe hundreds of years ago - basically same system, different part of the curve.

Seriously, how do you think the European aristocracy came into being? It was rich and wealthy merchants using their money and power to buy themselves rights and more power.

This isn't entirely correct. A nobility title came with land (a feud), not with wealth. You could be piss poor and still be an aristocrate, and then again, in the Middle Ages, you could be the richest merchant in the world and still not hold any title. This was, at least in part, because of religion: trading was considered to be usury (for obvioud reasons -- noone would sell goods for the price they bought them), and usury was considered to be a mortal sin.

Actually, if you research the American Revolution and the civil unrest among the poor during it's time, you will realize that laws in this country have always favored the rich. Shortly after the Declaration of Independence, laws were passed to restrict all but the wealthiest ten percent of the population from holding office (restricted by stipulations of vast land ownership). Also, the rich could buy their way out of military service, while the poor could not. This, in addition to the fact that the poor saw

... if you beat up a video store clerk and steal some real, actual copies of a film on DVD or VHS.

I'm not standing up for the crime, but isn't the punishment supposed to match it?

Great analogy, except that you're comparing the ACTUAL time you would probably get for a crime to the MAXIMUM time you could get for another crime. The MAXIMUM punishment for felony aggravated assault and felony robbery would probably be about 30+ years, depending on the state. Why do people on slashdot have such trouble comprehending maximum punishment? Go look at some laws. Most crimes have suprisingly high maximum punishents. Most people don't get the maximum. That's why it's called a maximum punishment, not a standard punishemnt.

It depends on which state. A lot of states now have on the 2nd or 3rd felony conviction you get life. That's one of the reasons they have built so many prisons the past decade or so, and why we have such a high inmate population as a percentage of the entire population

Laws and crimes and what gets emphasized are entirely random now. for instance, we have multi millions of illegal immigrants. People who jump the border have committed a felony, yet it is almost universally ignored, they are allowed to live freely almost anyplace inside the US. At best if they find a huge group of them near the border they'll just be shipped back over, they rarely serve any jail time. We also have laws that make hiring an illegal immigrant a federal crime, with a 10,000$ fine per incident, but you never hear much of any arrests in those cases, even though the practice is blatant.

There's more, that's just a blatant example. Law enforcement is political, it's not any sort of even or fair, it's whatever the elite class wants that season. They give the orders, their enforcers click heels and jump to it. If they are ordered to ignore certain crimes, they will do so, even if they are aware of them.

I am not pro criminal, I just think the laws are terribly skewed and not enforced fairly across the board, and we have a variety of laws on the books now that are just ridiculous and shouldn't even be there. The US has a growth industry of gradually adding to laws that make more of the lower and middle classes "criminals". I think it's planned that way, to make a two class society eventually, technofeudalism. They are also apparently destroying as much of the middle class job structure as they can. Any job they can find that is exportable they will, any job that they can't exported they will import millions of illegals or too many legals to take those jobs. It's so completely obvious I won't even debate it with any debunkers now, the stats and realities are all over. It's been slow but verifiably steady, and the numbers increase yearly. Part of the plan, command and control, the same old dodge the old aristocrats have always pulled down through the ages.

As to recording in the cinema? I could care less, I've been boycotting movies for awhile now, and paid for music, I just quit. If a movie is free to copy, I might buy it. I have two here I got that the producer lets people make copies of. Music, again, if it's free over the radio by putting up with ads I occassionaly listen, but besides that, don't buy any-new. Used I will buy, it's just recycled, and the producers don't make another penny on it, but some guy at a yard sale will so I don't care, but even then not too much, a few examples of each a year. I even quit buying from the new but marked down bins, stopped that last year.

I think if enough people will stop placing so much importance on "entertainmnerts" of that sort, we'll see more sane pricing and reduce any demand for copying for profit. it's all I can do, tell people to boycott movies and music and professional sports and television fiction. it's gotten so ridiculous expensive it's stupid, and the time wasting aspects of it are lost to the wasters, I think in a lot of cases they don't realise how absuerdly addicted they get to it to the detriment of other more important things our society ignores too much. When you can get several million people in one weekend to go drop tens of millions of dollars all over the country to watch some new movie, with thousands in any random city you pick, and the same city can't get two dozen people to a community meeting to discuss local judicial corruption or the next multi million dollar school budget, etc, well, there's something wrong there in *general terms*. IMO anyway.

Rome when it was collapsing had it's bread and circuses to keep the people amused and occupied so they wouldn't pay attention to the rot that was collapsing their society around them.. We have the same thing now but people don't like to think they are droned out barbarians addicted to bre

The issue is even more complex. The punishment for a crime should not encourage the suspect to use a greater level of violence to avoid capture than already in use in the crime. The punishment should also not put innocent bystanders at increased risk.

For example at sporting events certain behaviors are prohibited. The emphasized punishment for the behavior is ejection from the venue. If the action is a crime, the event may press charges. Most events that I have attended do not say that all prohibited action will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The reason, I believe, is because such statement might encourage suspects to be more resistant to the punishment, an in the process put innocent people at risk. For example, one can imagine some object accidently getting thrown onto the court. This obviously put player health at risk, and arguable could be the basis for a criminal prosecution. If the suspects thought that jail time was a real possibility, then they might choose to use violence to defend themselves, as the jail time might not be significantly increased. As it is, they have an incentive to leave quietly to avoid further punishment.

And this is what the theaters are missing. By attaching a five year penalty to a nonviolent action, they are endangering my health, the health of staff, and the well being of any police called to enforce the action. I mean is someone who is risking five years for recording a movie going to worry about 10 years for injuring the people around him in his attempt to avoid capture? Is such a person going to worry about the riot he or she causes as they pull a gun to try to escape? I know that this is the extreme possibility, but one must make a full analysis before passing these laws.

People will do really stupid stuff out of fear. In the US we try hard to have a fair and open process of law to minimize that fear. The problem is that process is becoming less fair, for instance by the reduced access to proper representation for those who cannot afford it, and as a consequence these parties tend to feel they have less to lose, which makes them more a threat to society.

On that note, if you were a movie theater employee making minimum wage, how would you enfore this law? Would you find someone with a camcorder and say "Excuse me sir, I'm going to need you to wait over here for the cops to arrive"? Maybe if you have a death wish. Of course the cops could be called without the camcorder user being aware of it, but what if he isn't noticed until the movie is almost over? If the theaters can't employ a security force capable of detaining someone, and they won't because it woul

"Let me guess--you're one of those people who thinks that corporate executives should get many years in prison rather than fines because of the economic damage their misdeeds cause."There is real, measurable damage when some clown in a business suit robs someone of their retirement fund. They destroy lives. I'm yet to see a poor starving industry executive begging me for money when I buy my groceries because some kid downloaded a copy of "Crossroads".

"Well, movie pirates likewise cause millions in economic damage."
If I hadn't been able to download a few episodes of The Sopranos, I never would have bought the entire DVD collection. Viewing times just don't suit my work habits unfortunately, and I'm not abou to shell out $100 on something that might just be garbage.

But wait, you're talking about those poor unfortunate people like set builders and painters, the hard workers who make their living supporting the movie industry, and I'm hurting them, right?
If that's the case, they'd have a big complaint to lodge with those behind Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow. The whole movie filmed without a single set being built, everything CG apart from the main actors.
The movie industry is playing catch-up to consumer demands. They either adapt, of their business model dies.
Is it really that hard to grasp?

The existence of bricks don't obsolete car windows or cause us to scream about how the car window manufacturers need to come up with new brick-resistant windows or go out of business. Rather, we say "find the idiots who are throwing bricks through windows."

That's a wonderful analogy. The recording industry wants to outlaw the bricks themselves (i.e. P2P). Then we couldn't use them to build houses and pave driveways (share noninfringing files).

They do. But this law would give you up to three years in prison even if you don't do it for profit. While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks. So the punishment should fit the crime, that is, it should only be worth a few bucks, not millions.

If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.

While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks

If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.

Copying isn't stealing. How many times that has to be told. Don't fall into the rhetoric of big media companies twisting the terms to make breaking the

You're forgetting the all important third option: Record/Pirate movie for non-personal non-profit distribution. For instance, putting it up on the internet for free download. That can cost a film maker (producers and directors), distributors, actors, and studios much dinero in lost theater, PayPerView, rental, and dvd/VHS sales. And this cost is only likely to increase as the use of high bandwidth internet connections increases. You may not agree with the degree of proposed punishment or the all-things-

I've also never known anyone that happened to be on vacation, filming the city or what have you, and then be overcome with the sudden urge to pop in for a movie.

You don't know many people then. I see films all the time when I go on holiday. I generally have my camera with me. I travel by train, so I have no car to leave my camera in, and I stay in youth hostels, so leaving expensive equipment in the room is as good as leaving them on a table in a fast-food restaurant with a sign that says "STEAL ME".

If the movie industry wants regulation of what people can do in music theaters,
I tend to think that they should be able to get whatever rules
they want, as long as they pay the costs of enforcement. (by contrast, the
internet "belongs to us", the world-wide user community, and no movie industry
or music industry should be allowed to interfere with how we choose to network
or computers together.)

But why on earth should taypayers have to pay for enforcement of these rules?

If preventing camcorders is movie theaters is so important to their business,
they should pay for the cost of preventing it. Anything else is a form of
subsidy of the music industry. Taypayer money should be spend on protecting
the security of people. Subsidies (in any form) are justified only if an
industry which is important for providing necessities of life to the population
is otherwise likely to suffer significant harm. In this case, there is no
justification: The movie industry does not provide any necessities, just
luxerious. Also, the movie industry would be quite capable of paying the costs
of enforcing the rules they asked for. By paying for enforcement of this rule,
Senate intends to rob the poor (taypayers) and giev to the rich (movie
industry).

I stand corrected in my other post... I guess people will get worked up over this. So what you're saying is that we shouldn't have to pay for law enforcement to stop people from robbing your local McDonalds as well? If something is wrong, it's wrong, and if there's a law made against it, then officers should be in place to uphold that law. Otherwise our laws mean nothing. If you don't like this law, use your vote to show that. I really don't mind the government spending less than a penny per person on this when they're throwing a lot more money around on REALLY stupid projects.

Using the same argument, why should taxpayers pay for the enforcement of the law regarding bank robberies instead of the banks? Or murder? Surely, if I get murdered, it's my responsibility to bequeath enough money to ensure my killer is caught?

$5 million is a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of tax revenue the entire movie industry (studios, distributors, cinemas, actors, crew, etc.) bring in annually. In short, by paying their taxes, the film industry is in fact paying for the enforcement of these laws. The "why should taxpayers pay?" line is so broken, you really go and do some very, very basic study of economics.

MancDiceman wrote: Using the same argument, why should taxpayers pay for the enforcement of the law regarding bank robberies instead of the banks? Or murder? Surely, if I get murdered, it's my responsibility to bequeath enough money to ensure my killer is caught?

I had written: "Taypayer money should be spend on protecting the security of people." This includes enforcing laws against murder and robbery.

Enforcing a rule against camcorders is like enforcing other kinds of NDAs. Whether or not you think t

Bank robbers endanger the general public. Also, banks hire private security. The cops are only needed if the situation escalates.

Murder needs to be prosicuted so that the general public can feel safe and do their jobs.

$5M may be a small ammount, but it's still five fucking million dolars! Let's use it to train 2 more cops and have them patrol streets.

The movie industry probably pays less tax than you think. I read an analasys of how these things work. Basicly, a company is formed to produce the film. The company leases all the equipment and sets from MGM or Mirimax or Disney. Then the film is made. After the profits start rolling in, the company has to pay MGM for the rentals. The rental prices are set to absorb any real profits. Then the company declares bankruptcy. MGM ends up with all the money by basicly renting the equipment to itself.

I'm sure these companies pay tax. But if you and I are taxed at 20% to 30% of our income, big production companies probably pay closer to 5%. Think about that. You lose 1 of every 3 dolars you make so that police can enforce the rights of a company that pays 2 out of every 50 dollars it makes.

I think that this is totally a legitimate thing to get people in trouble for... but I mean, 3 years if you didn't profit from it? 3 years seems harsh even for the people who sell those bad VCDs of movies in theatres.

If I broke out my cell phone video recorder and took a quick clip of a movie, does that warrant 3 years in prison?

That will end up costing each of us about 1/2 of one cent per year until 2009 then. I don't know... doesn't really matter to me except I'll have to wait for the movies to come out on DVD. I still go to at least 3 movies a month and purchase 2 DVD's per week, so I never felt bad about watching the occassional cam'd movie. Whatever... I'm guessing that even here on Slashdot people won't find anything too exciting about this.

Considering most good quality pirated movies are captured in empty theaters with the help of theater
employee's I'm wondering how it will be enforced? I'm sure it's easy to bust some guy with a camcorder in a crowded theater but what about the people that record telecine copies?

Of course it sucks when you have to watch ads just after having had to pay a good deal of cash for the right to watch a movie. But I don't think the cinemas would survive without the ads - since most of the ticket price goes directly to the distributor.

Here at least (germany), the cinemas live on the ads, popcorn and cola - not on the movies. It's a neccessary evil, and completely unrelated to the copyright issue.

People who secretly videotape movies when they are shown in theaters could go to prison for up to three years under a bill approved unanimously by the U.S. Senate on Friday. ---TFA

This is good! It looks like if you blatently go in a theater and tape you are free in clear. Fuck this secret business, I want my cam download to look like MST3k with heckling. Oh, and the shadows of heads holding camcorders is a bonus for those of us who want that black space filled with something when we view in letterbox format.

For the record telesync is when audio is captured directly off the reel and a high quality camcorder is setup in an empty theather to capture the film on as best as possible.
telecine captures everything directly off the reel and is usually as good as vhs/dvd.
both methods usually accomplished with help of theater employee's.

Nobody bothers with cam copies anymore anyway. You can find good telecines/telesyncs within a few days of release already.

Telesync = empty theater, cam on a tripod, sound from the theater sound panels. So theater employees are helping or doing it. Studio's own fault for not securely handling the prints/theaters. Ah but the theaters want to get by with just one guy running multiple showings being paid just bit over minimum wage while working long hours. And you wonder why these guys 'leak' stuff?

Telecine = print of the movie, telecine machine, basically an unauthorized film-to-digital transfer. Requires complete access to the print at a location with a telecine machine. DEFINITELY means that studios don't handle the security of the prints as they should. Nobody should be able to walk out of a theater with the print to telecine it. Meaning some prints end up in wrong hands - either out of the theaters or from the studios themselves.

And since law is apparently only vs. cammers, getting the print telecined is still apparently just a copyright infringement.

Of course buying a law against teleciners would make the studios admit that their prints are not handled securely and that the movie theater employees are leaking like hell. If pirates commonly can get the whole print in their hands and run it thru a telecine machine at their leisure, that would possibly wake up the lawmakers that this law is beyond stupid and does nothing to curb piracy.

A friend of mine who is over here for a year on training (he's from Germany) had the best reply to this one: "This country is just going nuts.. I dont.. I really dont even know what to say.... I just need to.. heh, get out of here as soon as possible.."

It's a sad day when you realize youre no longer internally proud of your own country.. that it's abandoned its own values and is becoming a de facto police state.

1) Changing the meaning of "patriot" to someone who is behind his government no matter what.2) Changing the definition of "democracy" to "the lesser of two evils"3) Changing the meaning of any political group to be derogatory.4) Labeling anyone who speaks out against the government to be either a traitor or freedom hating commie bastard (this relates to #1)

Of course, I'm just a godless freedom hating commie bastard from Denmark of all places - hell, I'm even a member of the [warning for the faint of heart] Social Democrats AND I'm an atheis, so that absolutely PROVES that I'm a freedom hating godless commie bastard. Oh, and since I don't agree with your governments politics, and can really only stand Colin Powel, I hate America too.

This kind of law is another example of legislation that could only ever be passed in a corporate dictatorship. This law fits the definition of political corruption - an obviously bought law. If there were similar penalties for price fixing or anti-competitive behaviour, perhaps that would go some way to deterring music company executives from their criminal behaviour. A prison sentence of any type is obviously absurd for something as benign as filming a cinema screen. Systems like region coding (which tramps all over free trade laws), and digital rights management (which makes it impossible for consumers to excercise their right to make copies on alternative media, or backups) are the problem for those greedy companies. They are angering consumers, already tired of their dismal formulaic offerings, and not able to purchase movies/music in the way the want to (again because of outdated distribtion systems of greedy record companies), then blaming the consumers for a decline in record sales. Music is overpriced, films are overpriced. Record and movie prices probably belong at about 25% of the present level. Maybe when they reach this point, and the quality improves, i would buy CDs or movies again.

Who are the folks bringing the camcorders into
the theaters, and to whom are they selling their
wares? It's not the mini-van soccer mom who is happy to
give her brood a 100 dollar bill and drop them
off at the mall for the day.

This horrible law is targeted at the urban poor.
It is poor urban dwellers who are the prime
"offenders". This demographic already suffers
a hideously high rate of incarceration,
even for non-violent "crimes" like this.
The urban poor are the only audience who would tolerate the low quality,
shaky pictures, and muffled sound.
Dolby 5.1? Not hardly. These videos aren't
finding their way into the $30K home theaters
of Malibu and the Hamptons.

I guess it doesn't matter to Jack Valenti
and Barbara Streisand. Hey they've got to pay
for their botox and Hummer SUVs. What's
it matter if another nigga or two is locked away
for a few years?

I wish the guy who raped my daughter had gotten 3-10 years. Instead, he got off on a technicality and ended up raping and murdering another girl in our neighborhood the night he was freed. He'll be eligible for parole in 2008, a measly 10 years after his plea-bargain conviction of 3rd degree sexual assault and second degree manslaughter. The DA wanted a quick conviction so he could spend time prosecuting a high-profile, highly public insider trading case that would keep him in front of the cameras for a couple of months before his re-election.

There is a huge problem when white-collar crimes are more vigorously prosecuted and receive proportionally tougher penalties than violent crimes. It just goes to show how much influence corporations have on our government. This is why we NEED campaign finance reform. This is why we NEED to get rid of soft money alltogether. ALL soft money. This is why we NEED to get rid of PACs - so daughters like mine can have justice instead of (or possibly in addition to) a lifetime of therapy.

Why do we try to criminalize every act? Are we trying to create a nation of criminals?

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . ..We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Ironically a report out earlier this week shows that the US imprisons more people than any other developed country. To give you a few figures from the article onprisons not the answer for social problems [fortwayne.com], "There were 715 inmates for every 100,000 U.S. residents last June. Mexico's incarceration rate is 169 per 100,000, and Canada's rate is 116."

There are currently more than 2 million people in US jails. NPR is running a series this week on the ineffectiveness of the prison [npr.org] system [npr.org].

Now I don't think for a minute that this sentence will ever be carried out. For one, didn't we already determine that most pirated movies come from people who get advanced copies on DVD? Can't find articles on that right now.

But if you want to change this ridiculous system of punishment please support initiatives like Downsize DC [downsizedc.org].

Is this or is this not the PIRATE Act? I submitted a story about this from news.com.com [com.com] that seems to say the PIRATE Act was passed unanimously on Friday. If so, this is more dramatic legislation than the accompanying camcording bill-- it's not even in the same class. This would mean the DoJ might be using taxpayer dollars to pick up the tab for the RIAA's lawsuits in the near future.

Someone want to confirm or deny this? Was the PIRATE Act passed "unanimously"?

Last time I looked 'we' stronly believe in copyright enforcement when / as it applies to GPL or other FOSS licensed material. But when the shoe's on the other foot, suddenly people who go to a fair bit of trouble to steal a copyright work are *victims*? I think not.

Many of the comments here run along the lines of 'ohh look at those really harsh penalties, compare them to (white-collar-crime, violent crime...).

Kindly observe that this is *federal* legislation (and that are some states have enacted laws). That means that what's prosecuted under this is most likely going to be the 'theatre employee runs a showing off-hours explicitly to do a video rip' instances. *Hence* the stiffer penalties.

The pentalties for copyright theft are already out there, this isn't new - it's addressing a specific instance.

Sure we don't like DMCA, RIAA et al and I heartily agree that there are some 1st class morons in "the Industry" lobbying etc.

However in fact technology is making copyright theft easier and with the bar lowered there are going to be laws passed (DMCA etc) to try to address that.

Deal. And if the best way you can think of 'dealing' is to cry wolf about how people without respect for others property are 'victims'... well you can expect more of the same kind of legislation.

The problem with this law is that it adds criminal penalties for what was formerly a civil offense. The civil penalties were in line with severity of a crime. This law has mandatory 10-year penalties for repeat offenders - those that have already spent 10-20 years in prison under this law.

That's more than serial rapists, murderers, or people who embezzle billions. That's more than most drug-related crime laws.

The problem isn't the enforcement but, rather, that the penalty is hideously out of whack with the severity of the crime.

Yes, *cough* BULLSHIT *cough* is appropriate for your post. The likelihood of this law being applied rather than a plea agreement happening in virtually all the cases is non-existent. And, repeat offenders probably should do jail time for being so damn stupid.

But the bottom-line it this: it's really a non-issue if you understand that it is wrong, illegal, and stupid to pirate a film with a video cam. Perhaps if this is too hard for you to grasp, you need to be culled from the herd as a benefit to everyone

Last time I looked 'we' stronly believe in copyright enforcement when / as it applies to GPL or other FOSS licensed material. But when the shoe's on the other foot, suddenly people who go to a fair bit of trouble to steal a copyright work are *victims*? I think not.

Yes, "we" strongly believe in copyright enforcement ("we" in the reasonable-headed group of/.ers). That means living up to the agreement of the licence that the material was given out with. That means that if you break the agreement, you remedy it (by a number of means, including replacing offending code with new code, GPL'ing the application, cross-licencing the code from the author, or stop distributing the product). None of these involve criminal prosecution in any way, nor is it appropriate.

I seriously doubt that many here really think that jail time is appropriate punishment for the lazy coder at some corporation who inserted a module from GPL'ed sources to save himself some work. Or even for the management at said corporation who encouraged the practice to reduce development costs. Yet that is what we have for the copiers of "IP" belonging to big media.

if the best way you can think of 'dealing' is to cry wolf about how people without respect for others property are 'victims'... well you can expect more of the same kind of legislation.

The best way to deal with this offence is in line with deed done: financially. Charging the offender for actual damages (likely about $20) plus appropriate punitive damages (a couple thousand at most) is the sane way to deal with this "crime". Taking a violation of civil law and making the punishment a criminal offence, with such rediculously small impact (please show me a credible study that proves any financial losses from shitty camcorder movies), is just stupid.

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and
coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee
forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so
straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are
lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the
lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the
government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said", said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them." he said. "They're completely wrong
of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

This back and forth between MPAA and RIAA and their cries over poverty and theft ruining their bottom line - then vehemently debated by many here proclaiming that these movie previews HELP spur more movie sales, not the other way around.

Wouldn't it be interesting if a different boycott could be arranged - one where instead of everyone saying 'don't buy music, don't movies', we just say - for one good movie - Don't record it? Do not let it hit the internet? Not one little copy? If we look back at the Matrix, Spiderman, et al., these were heavily taped and found online, only to have their ticket sales soar into the hundreds of millions. So many here could claim, 'See, it didn't hurt at all - it probably helped as advertising.' It is an argument that I agree with, that the people who take the time to hunt for and download a grainy copy are those who are the movies biggest fans anyway, and they just can't wait to see it. It won't stop them from going to the movie, buying the DVD - they just want to get their hands on all of it.

Soooo - what if? Let's take Spiderman2 about to come out soon. I suppose to prove a theory one way or the other, something needs to give. Otherwise it remains theory. So imagine if not one copy of Spiderman2 were released online? And what if, instead of a blockbuster, the movie only produced a lackluster performance? That could add fuel to the argument that the pre-recording really was helping after all, and the MPAA just shot themselves in foot - again. If sales are about the same, it could prove that the pre-recording didn't make a difference. Does the MPAA really think that they could have earned more than the 300 to 500 million some of these movies make? I know that there are many holes in my idea, and it would be almost impossible to pull together a united, worldwide 'freeze-frame' event. But still, it makes me wonder - what if?

As usual we have the vocal comments from the "Record it eslewhere" crew and from the "But it's illegal, so why are you whining" collective. Both sides, as usual, seem to be missing the point.

Some people have touched on the real issues, but neither side (especially the "it's illegal!" side) seem to even notice the points.

1 - It's overkill
I think that in-cinema recording is wrong (though the over-the-top messages before movies make me want to do so out of spite, I admit). You bring in a camcorder to use in a film and there are very few things other than bootlegging that you can be doing. So I'm not disagreeing that it's illegal.

But come on here. This is walnut-with-a-sledgehammer territory. It's not a criminal offence - or shouldn't be. Hefty fine. Confiscation of equipment. Barred from cinemas. These would be acceptable - and actually stop repeat attempts. But prison-time? Yeah, great. Obligatory "bubba" gags aside, prison is usually a good place to pick up real skills and contacts.

2 - It's not the cause of the problem
As people keep saying, it's not camjobs that are doing the rounds and eating into postential ticket-sales. If anything is, it's be the high-quality Telesyncs that people keep on referring to here. It ain't punters-with-a-cam, it's cinema-workers with some "slightly better" kit.

Adding the two together, they're basically giving a vastly OTT punishment to the people who aren't even the main cause of bootlegging. And the cost of which will be passed onto the US taxpayer, and probably reflected in box-office prices too.

Honestly, they're probably losing more money (and customers) to trying to stamp out bootlegs than they do to the actual bootlegs.

Ten years in prison for videotaping a movie in a theater... I think the penalty for murder should be reduced to a month in jail, and the penalty for rape should be reduced to an hour of community service. But if you violate someone's intellectual property rights, they should throw you in Abu Ghraib for at least 50 years.

It is the US Senate that made this bill into law. I suggest that you first start with fixing the way that your government is seemingly bought off at every turn by political "donations". It is so easy to see what is happening I don't understand why it is tolerated. I mean its corruption isn't it? Just corruption that is deemed acceptable.

Of course a counter argument is that we can play that game as well by paying off senators to help us instead of big business, but I'm sure big business has deeper pockets from which to give. Deep pockets that we as consumers give them. I'm sure there are controls on the size of "donations" but it creates an inherent conflict of interest that, in my opinion, shouldn't be tolerated.

Actually the senate HAS NOT made this a law, they only passed it, it still has to pass the house. Then the President has to sign it. considering it was Unanimous, these seem fairly likely though.
In fact since the house hasn't passed it(unless I missed that in the article), they could quite easily drop it, or change it 1 year / 2 years or 10/50 years or whatever they feel like. Of course if they change it the senate has to re-pass the changed version and so on till they both agree and then Bush still ha

The URL in the parent post doesn't work (apparently due to slashdot software eating the underscore character because my preview failed the same way). Cut and paste the one below instead, you'll be glad you did.

Sometimes the point of elections are not always who is going to win. If you like Nader or some other 3rd party. Then vote for them. Even if they don't have a chance of winning. So say if 5% votes for Nader and Kerry Looses by close or under 5% then the democratic and the republican party will need to do some thinking about their stances and issues. Now 5% of the population is a good amount of people with some views.If you don't like the companies policies (like the movie industry) BoyCott them (That mean